Obama wants to limit how much Americans cat eat and use air conditioning?
-
I'd like to think "folks, we need to cut back a bit on consumption" doesn't need regulation to get through to people. Would you stop driving your SUV if he asked nicely and had facts and good reason backing up what he asked?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
'd like to think "folks, we need to cut back a bit on consumption" doesn't need regulation to get through to people.
"That's not going to happen" seems to imply more than just asking nicely.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
I'd like to think "folks, we need to cut back a bit on consumption" doesn't need regulation to get through to people. Would you stop driving your SUV if he asked nicely and had facts and good reason backing up what he asked?
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
Would you stop driving your SUV if he asked nicely and had facts and good reason backing up what he asked?
Once upon a time I drove a Ford 350 Dually (9.9 MPG), now I drive a Ranger (24 MPG). Nobody had to ask, tell, beg, explain, or tutor me, I just did the math. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Exactly. "That" refers to America pulling off a "do as I say, not as I do." Actually I'd settle for telling India and China to do as we do now. Where we have warts, they have tumors.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Where we have warts, they have tumors.
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do. If we don't then those 3 billion Chinese and Indians currently at a fraction of our consumption levels are going to see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to aspire to our levels.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Exactly. "That" refers to America pulling off a "do as I say, not as I do." Actually I'd settle for telling India and China to do as we do now. Where we have warts, they have tumors.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Exactly. "That" refers to America pulling off a "do as I say, not as I do."
I interpreted "that" to mean the act of driving SUVs, keeping the air conditioner set to 72 degrees and eating as much as you want. That seems to be the general consensus on the other forum that I saw this on also. But you may be right.
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
-
Paul Watson wrote:
Would you stop driving your SUV if he asked nicely and had facts and good reason backing up what he asked?
Once upon a time I drove a Ford 350 Dually (9.9 MPG), now I drive a Ranger (24 MPG). Nobody had to ask, tell, beg, explain, or tutor me, I just did the math. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Glad to hear it.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Oakman wrote:
Where we have warts, they have tumors.
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do. If we don't then those 3 billion Chinese and Indians currently at a fraction of our consumption levels are going to see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to aspire to our levels.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
If we don't then those 3 billion Chinese and Indians currently at a fraction of our consumption levels are going to see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to aspire to our levels.
Will you personally guarantee that if we do cut back, they will give up those aspirations? Or simply figure that their piece of the pie got bigger?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said. "That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h-wpxs1Re-8vx2Zk5xnYygW1W67w[^]
I'm a Christian: I *know* that I'm perverted. - Ilion
The amazing thing is that Obama and McCain both seem to be running to see which one of them can lose the election the fastest.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:47 PM
-
Paul Watson wrote:
If we don't then those 3 billion Chinese and Indians currently at a fraction of our consumption levels are going to see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to aspire to our levels.
Will you personally guarantee that if we do cut back, they will give up those aspirations? Or simply figure that their piece of the pie got bigger?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Of course I cannot guarantee that, nobody can. We can only try and hope. I don't for a moment think this is going to be easy. It is going to be monumentally difficult. I'd rather try though than just be a defeatist and go out in a blaze of glory.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Oakman wrote:
Where we have warts, they have tumors.
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do. If we don't then those 3 billion Chinese and Indians currently at a fraction of our consumption levels are going to see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to aspire to our levels.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do.
ANd who precisely gets empowered to define when the cutting back stops? I mean, are we talking 19th century here? How about 12th? Hell, why not 10,000 BC. Cutting back is not the answer. What we need to do is allow for massive tax breaks for all parties who invest in new forms of energy, especially nuclear fusion. Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries. If that fails, then we won't need to worry about cutting back because nature will take care of that for us. We need to respect the free markets and encourage investment not Obama's communist effort to confiscate 'excess profits'. Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do.
ANd who precisely gets empowered to define when the cutting back stops? I mean, are we talking 19th century here? How about 12th? Hell, why not 10,000 BC. Cutting back is not the answer. What we need to do is allow for massive tax breaks for all parties who invest in new forms of energy, especially nuclear fusion. Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries. If that fails, then we won't need to worry about cutting back because nature will take care of that for us. We need to respect the free markets and encourage investment not Obama's communist effort to confiscate 'excess profits'. Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries.
It isn't just an energy problem, Stan. It is also a resource problem and nuclear fusion doesn't solve that. You'll have to start strip mining the rest of the solar system and last time I checked we can barely get guys into orbit. As much as I dislike "excess profits" I do agree that regulation/taxation etc. is not the way. Some cut-backs now will help us survive long enough to solve these problems.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
In industry yes, in personal life-style, hell no. We individual Westerners have a lot of cutting back to do.
ANd who precisely gets empowered to define when the cutting back stops? I mean, are we talking 19th century here? How about 12th? Hell, why not 10,000 BC. Cutting back is not the answer. What we need to do is allow for massive tax breaks for all parties who invest in new forms of energy, especially nuclear fusion. Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries. If that fails, then we won't need to worry about cutting back because nature will take care of that for us. We need to respect the free markets and encourage investment not Obama's communist effort to confiscate 'excess profits'. Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits
How you decide what to define as excessive or even obscene profits will no doubt be interesting with differing pressure groups having their respective say. The same is equally true in the definition of excessive or oscene salaries and bonuses. There will always be fat cats but general taxation should be they key to level to some extent an uneven playing field. If giving company's tax breaks you encourage investments then that would be fine, but, if this only goes into the deeper pockets of already fat cats then that may be considered as unfair by the populus. And that could be a cause for future troublemakers hell-bent on forcing a level playing field through non-peaceful means.
Stan Shannon wrote:
cutting back
This planet we call home has finite resources. And they have to be managed properly as failure to do so will cause unnecessary misery to many.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Who the hell is he to say someone has excess profits
How you decide what to define as excessive or even obscene profits will no doubt be interesting with differing pressure groups having their respective say. The same is equally true in the definition of excessive or oscene salaries and bonuses. There will always be fat cats but general taxation should be they key to level to some extent an uneven playing field. If giving company's tax breaks you encourage investments then that would be fine, but, if this only goes into the deeper pockets of already fat cats then that may be considered as unfair by the populus. And that could be a cause for future troublemakers hell-bent on forcing a level playing field through non-peaceful means.
Stan Shannon wrote:
cutting back
This planet we call home has finite resources. And they have to be managed properly as failure to do so will cause unnecessary misery to many.
I disagree entirely. Wealth does the most good for the most people when allowed to circulate freely in the economy. 'Fat Cats' don't put that money in their pockets. They spend it. They invest it. All of which provides jobs and liberty to an entire society.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This planet we call home has finite resources. And they have to be managed properly as failure to do so will cause unnecessary misery to many.
Granted, but if we cannot create scaleable energy supplies, and expand into space, than there is a 100% chance of ultimate collapse of human civilization in any case.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries.
It isn't just an energy problem, Stan. It is also a resource problem and nuclear fusion doesn't solve that. You'll have to start strip mining the rest of the solar system and last time I checked we can barely get guys into orbit. As much as I dislike "excess profits" I do agree that regulation/taxation etc. is not the way. Some cut-backs now will help us survive long enough to solve these problems.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
It is also a resource problem and nuclear fusion doesn't solve that. You'll have to start strip mining the rest of the solar system and last time I checked we can barely get guys into orbit.
Yes, but energy is the primary reason we cannot do that. We need to solve the energy problem and than solve the space problem. Or we are toast in any case.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Of course I cannot guarantee that, nobody can. We can only try and hope. I don't for a moment think this is going to be easy. It is going to be monumentally difficult. I'd rather try though than just be a defeatist and go out in a blaze of glory.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
go out in a blaze of glory
well usually to go out in a blaze of glory, you have got to be trying hard and reaching high. I'd like to see us stop pissing around with the little solutions like raising the thermostat a few degrees which market pressures are likely to take care of anyway. Electric cars are an excellent start, now lets try electric-steamers for long distance travel. Let's restart the nuclear power program and work out a way of disposing with spent fuel rods in the sun. Lets figure out how to put solar panels in LEO and beam the power down to giant receptor farms on earth. Let's industrialize the moon if its got water or Mars if it doesn't but get our factories off planet. Let's colonize the asteroids, and relieve population pressure - at least from the countries that have the sense to restrict their breeding. Lets stop wasting time and money trying to hold back the ocean from a city 17 feet below sea level or providing billions of gigawatts to Vegas to light up the night and billions of gallons of water so they grow grass in the desert. There's a commercial being played right now, I believe to encourage retirement planning. It shows a giant dam with a tiny leak. An inspector 'fixes' the leak with his chewing gum - for about ten seconds. Most of the proposals Al Gore and his cronies propose are exactly that - chewing gum that is supposed to withstand thousands of ppsi. If that's all mankind can come up with - then fuck it - eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. (The orgy starts at my house!) BUT if we can use the brains we have to eliminate the problems altogether, then hell yes, sacrifice will not only be called for, I believe that it will be made willingly by Americans, Brits, Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, Russians - even Frenchmen (jk). We are not stupid, we only have stupid leaders.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I disagree entirely. Wealth does the most good for the most people when allowed to circulate freely in the economy. 'Fat Cats' don't put that money in their pockets. They spend it. They invest it. All of which provides jobs and liberty to an entire society.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This planet we call home has finite resources. And they have to be managed properly as failure to do so will cause unnecessary misery to many.
Granted, but if we cannot create scaleable energy supplies, and expand into space, than there is a 100% chance of ultimate collapse of human civilization in any case.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Granted, but if we cannot create scaleable energy supplies, and expand into space, than there is a 100% chance of ultimate collapse of human civilization in any case.
A-bleeping-men!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
The amazing thing is that Obama and McCain both seem to be running to see which one of them can lose the election the fastest.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
modified on Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:47 PM
Stan Shannon wrote:
The amazing thing is that Obama and McCain both seem to be running to see which one of them can lose the election the fastest.
I've noticed that - and their senior-most elected supporters are helping as hard as they can - Reid/Pelosi provide excellent reasons to vote for McCain every day, while Bush labors far into the night to insure a Democratic Whitehouse next year.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I disagree entirely. Wealth does the most good for the most people when allowed to circulate freely in the economy. 'Fat Cats' don't put that money in their pockets. They spend it. They invest it. All of which provides jobs and liberty to an entire society.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This planet we call home has finite resources. And they have to be managed properly as failure to do so will cause unnecessary misery to many.
Granted, but if we cannot create scaleable energy supplies, and expand into space, than there is a 100% chance of ultimate collapse of human civilization in any case.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
100% chance of ultimate collapse of human civilization in any case
With proper management, human civilization can survive but not necessarily in a format which we today recognise.
Stan Shannon wrote:
'Fat Cats' don't put that money in their pockets. They spend it. They invest it. All of which provides jobs and liberty to an entire society.
That is the ideal, but, I rather suspect that those who don't have will look upon those who have with envious eyes and thieving minds and this may not be politically motivated, but could be.
-
Paul Watson wrote:
It is also a resource problem and nuclear fusion doesn't solve that. You'll have to start strip mining the rest of the solar system and last time I checked we can barely get guys into orbit.
Yes, but energy is the primary reason we cannot do that. We need to solve the energy problem and than solve the space problem. Or we are toast in any case.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes, but energy is the primary reason we cannot do that. We need to solve the energy problem and than solve the space problem. Or we are toast in any case.
Well, I'm not so sure I want us to be technically capable of strip mining the solar system. Access to energy and resources does not solve our real problems. If anything our current ways are what have made us easy targets. Our militaries built on our economies and culture are unable to root out peasants in caves. We are unable to convince the people around stone throwing murderers that what we preach is a better way. Those that we do convince end up threatening our way of life through consequences we hadn't thought of. I don't loathe us, I just think we aren't quite so right as we think. The aspirations I grew up with seem trivial. Many of the institutions we are meant to revere and support are on the verge of leaving us for dead (just read that pension thread above.) I want to survive but so do 7 billion other humans. Right now it looks like there is going to be a fight. I'd like to find a different way.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Who ever comes up first with a fusion power plant that works gets to hold the patent for the next several centuries.
It isn't just an energy problem, Stan. It is also a resource problem and nuclear fusion doesn't solve that. You'll have to start strip mining the rest of the solar system and last time I checked we can barely get guys into orbit. As much as I dislike "excess profits" I do agree that regulation/taxation etc. is not the way. Some cut-backs now will help us survive long enough to solve these problems.
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote:
At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
Paul Watson wrote:
last time I checked we can barely get guys into orbit.
Only as long as we continue to use 1960 technology. Rockets run by nuclear fission are more fuel efficient, and much much lighter, than chemical rockets. This means that, nuclear spaceships could travel twice as fast as our current chemical spacecraft. And a nuclear powered craft could maintain powered flight for 18 years using today's engineering. The nearest source of He3,needed if we are ever going to use fusion, is on the moon. Photonic laser thrusters already in prototype seem to hold promise for LEO to Mars in a week.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
100% chance of ultimate collapse of human civilization in any case
With proper management, human civilization can survive but not necessarily in a format which we today recognise.
Stan Shannon wrote:
'Fat Cats' don't put that money in their pockets. They spend it. They invest it. All of which provides jobs and liberty to an entire society.
That is the ideal, but, I rather suspect that those who don't have will look upon those who have with envious eyes and thieving minds and this may not be politically motivated, but could be.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
With proper management, human civilization can survive but not necessarily in a format which we today recognise.
Perhaps as an ant like collective of some kind. But what would be the point?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.